Rajeev Kumar Yadav @ Rajeev Ranjan v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82950 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-136 Year-2025 Thana- SANGRAMPUR District- Munger ====================================================== Rajeev Kumar Yadav @ Rajeev Ranjan, S/O Bodh Narayan Yadav, R/O Vill.- Kamarachak, Chakheli, P.S.- Sangrampur, Dist.- Munger ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Suman Kumar Jha, Advocate Ms. Rupali Jha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 16-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Sangrampur P.S. Case No. 136 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Section 64(1) of B.N.S.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner entered in the room of the informant in early morning at 4:00 A.M., tied her children and committed rape with her.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has annexed Annexure-P/2 which is account statement of the petitioner will go to show that there
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82950 of 2025(6) dt.16-03-2026 2/3 was relationship between the petitioner and the informant and he he used to pay her. It has further been submitted that this case has been filed out of mis-conception. Petitioner is having no criminal antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody since 25.08.2025.
5. Learned APP appearing for the state and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer of regular bail. Learned counsel for the informant has stated that there is nothing to show that the petitioner was in relation with the informant. The informant is a married lady having three kids. Petitioner has entered in the house of the informant at 4:00 A.M. and during course of investigation, medical examination of the informant and petitioner both was conducted and from perusal of the medical examination of the petitioner, it is clear that following injuries were found on his persons:- (i) Wound mark at right side of face, (ii) Four abrasion at right side of neck present, (iii) No any external injury The informant has also given her statement during course of investigation and has stated that the petitioner has committed rape with her and she has further stated that he has hushed the police due to which informant and her mother were assaulted by the police also. The story of consent which has been developed by the petitioner does not seem to be believable.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82950 of 2025(6) dt.16-03-2026 3/3
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.
7. However, petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded.
8. Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) lata/- U T